Thread: Determinism co-exists with free choice

Read How The Mind Works, by Stephen Pinker. It's a great summary and application of the leading ideas in cognition.

Who is this Stephen Pinker? Well he sounds like a pixie to me. Even though one book is not much authority on the issue I will check it out, and see how many, If not flaws, where you are misinterpreting the book.

Hmm...who's opinion is more credible here...NirvanaStarseed's, a self-centered stoner on DV....or the world's leading cognitive scientists who have spent years studying and researching consciousness?

hey hey no need to resort to name calling.........
Worlds leading? You sure he is studying consciousness? I Never herd of the guy. I will check it out though and see where exactly this pinker is coming from.

Sorry dude, I'm gonna have to side with the research.

No need to apoligize, Me too. Just make sure you interpret correctly huh.

We've explained this a number of times. The conscious awareness of other alternatives does not mean that you had the power to choose that path.

I've told you too, I have the ability to walk. I choose a path, End of issue. A choice is made.

If I was to explain myself again it would be getting repeditive, when one does not understand or refuses to listen or discuss properly a conversation can only go so far.

This is where understanding the difference between 'illusion of choice' and 'actual choice is very important.

This is where understanding \"the Illusion of no choice\" is very important.

Does hydrogen and oxygen choose to bond and form water? No, it all happens naturally as subatomic particles react according to the four fundamental forces of the universe.

Are you comparing our consiousness to hydrogen and oxygen particles? We are more advanced, more complex. That is hardly relevent.

While it is true that certain organisms have different 'levels' of consciousness and awareness, it has nothing to do with 'levels of evolution'. Evolution is NOT a ladder leading to higher levels of consciousness. If you think it is, you have serious flaws in your understanding of evolution.

Different levels of consiousness, equals different levels of evolution. Ofcourse it is a ladder. Things overall progress forward always.

Where are these flaws in my understanding, you are yet to point them out to me.

Consciousness is a good example of an \"emergent property\", where physical systems combine to form a function that is greater than any one of the individual parts. The parts that make up the brain have no consciousness, yet the network of these parts does.

If this was correct. We would also have no consciousness. Because we are part of something else. That is a part of something even bigger. The functions of Consiousness cannot be explained away by the properties of physical matter. Period.

we know consciousness emerges from the brain because when the brain is destroyed there is no consciousness.

Have you destroyed your brain? how do you know this?

Where is the evidence for a non-physical consciousness?

Yes. And where is the evidence for the created consiousness from a physical make up of matter only. How is consiousness produced this way? We don't know. People make up theorys. But we currently have no idea how such a thing exists. If you think it is known. You have not looked to deeply into the subject.

One of the main pitfalls with this notion is that, if consciousness is non-physical, how is it developed outside of the physical and then implanted in a physical host. Physical consciousness explains the same phenomena without lots of convoluted logic to validate it. Occam's razor applies here.

Developed outside the physical? Thats why we incarnate. To develop. No-one knows exackly how it is done or how consiousness works, thats what I am saying. This does not mean that it is not done. It means we have more to find out about how the process works. There is many more problems with assuming that physical matter makes up consiousness. If matter is the foundation. How was matter created? It would logically follow that something non physical in nature that eternally existed such as consiousness was able to manifest something that was not eternal but finite and illusionary, such as matter.

I say illusionary because as I mentioned. Matter at its essence is not even solid. And its foundations need to come from something that is not itself. Matter cannot manifest from matter. Consiousness does not need to manifest, because its all that ever existed. And by its nature carries all the core qualities of existence which allows for thought and being in the first place. That would be the very stuff of reality and the universe.
It simply progreses eternally as a whole. Matter is the illusion that consiousness created.

You can't prove me wrong. If you did the research you would understand what I am talking about.

If you are replying to this post then, according to determinism, that is the only thing you could have done at that time.

But what you fail to realize, is I choose to reply. That is why it was determined.

Determinism determines which alternative you see fit.

You have it backwards. What you see fit, is what determines the determinism.
You are at the steering wheel of the car, the car is not at the steering wheel of you.

Determinism does not limit your ability to do anything.

huh? You are saying it results in no free will. Thats the greatest limitation possible.

determinism just limits the amount of alternatives at any given time to 1

Determinism is not limiting anything. Your the one that is imagining that. Ultimately Infinite alternatives are determined. You say there is only 1 outcome that is determined. I know what context you are saying this and it is incorrect. As a whole, 1 outcome exists. But this is part of infinite outcomes joining together to create the full picture. Which manifests free will due to its infinity.

You think the linear experience of time and your life, is the only state of existence. And that this is all there is to life, You do not have the full picture of whats going on in reality. Your perspective is only 1 tiny part of the picture. You cannot see what the picture looks like as a whole with your perspective. And you cannot expect to understand it.

No one has ever said you make no choice.

Are you kidding me here. Your entire argument was that we don't have free choice.
A choice is a choice. If you have a choice. You have a free choice. Otherwise, it would not be called a choice would it.

As brady told you (again) within determinism there is an illusion of choice.

Your the one with the illusion. Thinking you have no choice, because of determinism.

If there is only 1 choice available to you, you choose it. This is choice.

Speaking as a whole. That choice being infinite, is not limited. Resulting in infinite free choice of that. And Therefore infinite free will of that. This is what is eternally progressed towards.

But it is not choice as we think of it, as it is not selecting something over an alternative.

It is selecting from the infinity of determinism with no limitation. that is what makes free choice free choice. It's infinity.

This is a ridiculous statement because time does not stop in determinism

I'm not sure what are your talking about here.

at each different time there are different determined choices. Again, determinism does not prohibit choice

Then you agree that free choice is possible with determinism. Because that is what the nature of choice means. Free will.

it just limits the choosable, at any given time, to 1. Which means it is an illusion of choice.

You are repeating yourself here.

Jesus walking on water is not a historical event, it is a religious one.

That is only your opinion. And you cannot prove it. It does not make it religious. It is religious of you to think it could not possibly have happened. If someone proves to me it did not happened I will straight away discard the belief. Until then evidence tells me quite strongly it most likely did happen. Thats what makes sense at this point in time to me. And I do not see that changing easily, due to my experience.

It's moments like this when I'm embarrassed to be a human.

Originally posted by Nirvana

Who is this Stephen Pinker? Well he sounds like a pixie to me.

hey hey no need to resort to name calling......... [/b]

[/b]

Hypocrite.

Even though one book is not much authority on the issue...[/b]

I feel the same way about the Bible.

If I was to explain myself again it would be getting repeditive, when one does not understand or refuses to listen or discuss properly a conversation can only go so far. [/b]

When one cannot accept that their viewpoint is illogical (no matter how painfully obvious it is), then a conversation can only go so far.

You have yet to cite a single source of reference that supports your viewpoint and still you continue to spew out wordy post that have little to no substance. There is a reason why you are alone in your viewpoint and it's not becaue your "enlightened." Think about it.

Well, you guys were name calling. Try keep it clean though, please.
Disagreeing doesn't necessarily require scorn or disrespect of others.

As for the prevailing opinions,, I'm with brady on this issue.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana Starseed)</div>

Who is this Stephen Pinker? Well he sounds like a pixie to me.[/b]

Originally posted by NS+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NS)</div>

no need for name calling.......[/b]

Originally posted by ITM
Hypocrite.

Take it easy buddy.

I don't think that compares to

Originally posted by In the Moment
NirvanaStarseed's, a self-centered stoner on DV.

Originally posted by In The Moment
Even though one book is not much authority on the issue...
I feel the same way about the Bible.

The bible has nothing to do with explaining consiousness.


<!--QuoteBegin-In The Moment@
You have yet to cite a single source of reference that supports your viewpoint

We were attempting to discuss the topic, not present sources that agree with what we are saying. I could give you loads of sources that prove what I am saying logically. I doubt you'd bother to read them all.

<!--QuoteBegin-In The Moment
still you continue to spew out wordy post that have little to no substance. There is a reason why you are alone in your viewpoint and it's not becaue your \"enlightened.\" Think about it.

No ITM, I am not alone in my viewpoint at all. There is many that understand what I am saying, not all of them have to be on DV. Remember that thought of the day I posted? Well I posted it for a reason. So maybe you should go read it again and think about that.

Originally posted by Nirvana
Take it easy buddy.

Just pointing out the obvious...no worries.

The bible has nothing to do with explaining consiousness. [/b]

Never said it did.

We were attempting to discuss the topic, not present sources that agree with what we are saying. I could give you loads of sources that prove what I am saying logically. I doubt you'd bother to read them all. [/b]

Anyone can come up with a bunch of crap off the top of their head and try to pass it off as the \"truth.\" Citing sources to validate your claims lends credentials to your side of the argument. And yes, I am interested in reading some source information from which you've adopted your views.

No ITM, I am not alone in my viewpoint at all. There is many that understand what I am saying, not all of them have to be on DV.[/b]

I agree...most are probably under heavy sedation in various mental institutions. ~

Remember that thought of the day I posted? Well I posted it for a reason. So maybe you should go read it again and think about that.[/b]

Let me give you a thought of the day...Only fools are sure of anything; the wise man keeps on guessing.

Originally posted by In the Moment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(In the Moment)</div>

Let me give you a thought of the day...Only fools are sure of anything; the wise man keeps on guessing.[/b]

Very good.....Try and see the statement in its proper context though. The wise man does not keep on guessing if he is a male or female, when he clearly has a penis.

Originally posted by in the moment+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(in the moment)</div>

Never said it did.[the bible having something to do with explaining consiousness][/b]

Why did you mention it then?

<!--QuoteBegin-in the moment@
most [who understand what nirvana starseed is saying] are probably under heavy sedation in various mental institutions.

<!--QuoteBegin-in the moment
Anyone can come up with a bunch of crap off the top of their head and try to pass it off as the \"truth.\" Citing sources to validate your claims lends credentials to your side of the argument. And yes, I am interested in reading some source information from which you've adopted your views.

Anyway here is todays thought of the day, just for you this time.

Anyone can argue, and most fools do.

Cut it out, or I'm locking this thread. No, it's not a threat, it's a promise.
After all, this thread seems to be going nowhere fast.

Originally posted by placebo
Cut it out, or I'm locking this thread. No, it's not a threat, it's a promise.
After all, this thread seems to be going nowhere fast.

If you feel the need to lock the entire thread, Can you atleast explain to me precisely what it is I or In The Moment should be cutting out? Thanx.

All I can think of that has not being appropriate was ITM claimed I was a self centered stoner. And said my opinions were crazy. While I called stephen Pinker who I do not even know a pixie. Other than this I cannot find a reason why the entire thread should be locked.

If it seems the thread is recently not going anywhere. (where should it be going?) Why does this require you to promise to lock the thread????

Can you elaborate?!

Thanks...

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed

All I can think of that has not being appropriate was ITM claimed I was a self centered stoner.

That was Brady actually...and although my opinion is in line with that statement, I can't take credit for making it.

yeah brady, whoever, someone said it. Still, no reason to close the entire thread.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed
Can you elaborate?!

I was referring to the way that you guys are starting to throw names and insults at each other.
I haven't a problem with the thread, and would like it to stay civilised, is all.
Perhaps I overreacted, but after the way the philosophy section was going prior to the religion section...

Originally posted by placebo
was referring to the way that you guys are starting to throw names and insults at each other.

ok.

But I have not thrown any names or insults in this thread to any dv member, but i have called stephen pinker a pixie. But he is not present in the discussion and I have no idea who it is. And I only said that cause i found the whole Mr pinker thing was perhaps something out of the ompa lompa factory, but I wasn't really being deadly serious about it.

I wasn't targetting any particular person with my comment. You seem to think I was berating you specifically?
To be honest I don't even recall who called someone a stoner, for example.
I'm not particularly interested in keeping a black book, I'd just like to keep things clean.
Since everything seems okay, there's no need to keep discussing this

right now im procrastinating from studying for an anatomy final that starts tomorrow at 9. anyways i started reading this thread from around page 1, then skipped around and got to the end, apparently there's been some beef, but im Choosing not to find out what happened cause i just want to talk about this, hopefully hasnt all ready been covered...

somewhere back there Nirvana you where talking about making the choice to go left or right. You said you think about which way you want to go and make a decision ....but how do you know why you made the decision exactly.....

Maybe you think you wanted to go left, but what was the basis of this thought. Maybe this decision is not completely concious, as most decisions are not, and therefore you do not have complete control of the action. Perhaps part of the reason you go left is because you are left handed and it feels like the right way to go, but while walking to the left you are not even aware of this, among many other various possible subconcious thoughts that are steering you towards your decision.

I think free will is possible, but rarely takes place due to the fact that we are bombarded with so many distractions, along with ignorance, and rarely are able to make a truely concious, intelligent decision on almost anything with our out of control brains. ANyways i have to try and make myself go study.